W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > February 2007

Re: GRDDL-aware agents (Was Re: "GRDDL Agents" ...) (#issue-conformance-labels)

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:30:51 -0500 (EST)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>, GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.60.0702201424150.20412@joplin.bio.ri.ccf.org>

I think it is a good thing to shoot for conformance labels for security 
purposes, but it's hard to mandate *SHOULD* when the criteria for *SHOULD* 
is unclear (see comments inline)

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Dan Connolly wrote:
> A GRDDL-aware agent is a software module that computes *GRDDL results* of 
> information resources.
>
> For example, a SPARQL query service might use a GRDDL-aware agent for 
> collecting RDF data. Or a Web browser might serve as a GRDDL-aware agent for 
> the purpose of collecting calendar and contact data. The appropriate policy 
> for which results to compute and when is likely to involve waiting for a 
> signal from user more in the Web browser case than in the query service case.

This covers being being able to choose which transforms to apply, yes..

> Subject to security considerations <http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#sec> 
> below and local policy as expressed in its configuration, given a URI I of an 
> information resource IR, and an XPath node N for a representation of IR, a 
> GRDDL Agent *should*:
>
>  1. Find each transformation associated with N, i.e.
    .. snip ..
>  2. Apply each transformation to obtain a GRDDL result.

This is underspecified for a *SHOULD* clause.  Again, i ask.. what does 
the agent do if the transform is *not* XProc or XSLT 1.0/2.0 - both of 
which have very well specified mechanisms for input and output.  How could 
it possibly conform to a *SHOULD* which is underspecified?  I myself would 
not know how to deal with a transformation algorithm other than XProc / 
XSLT.  I could reasonably cook up a set of restrictions on the kinds of 
transformation which are 'GRDDL-friendly' which would probably bottom-out 
in something like infrastructure for defining a task or service in a 
workflow - but is that what we want our conformance label(s) to contend 
with?  It seems to me either we are (carefully) selective about what we 
mandate or we don't use SHOULD / MUST / etc.. language.

Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
ogbujic@ccf.org
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 19:31:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT